Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) architecture for the year 2025
MetadataShow full item record
The Unites States' first space systems programs, to include launch, ground, and space segments and their associated infrastructure, were initially developed to meet the requirements of the strategic users. Since the 1991 Gulf War, there has been a growing dependence on the capabilities and support delivered by those programs to meet requirements of non-strategic users. The current National Security Space (NSS) architecture makes it rather difficult and challenging for all but critical strategic users to fully capitalize on the available assets. Timelines that were once adequate to deliver strategic capabilities are now not sufficient to allow a broader range of users to realize the benefit from using the available space systems. In addition, the non-strategic users run into challenges when they attempt to change the tasking requirements that would enable them to receive associated products / services that are useful and timely. With the identified gaps in the current NSS environment, the Integrated Product Team (IPT), consisting of ten active duty military students, sought solutions to make space more Operationally Responsive to its customers by 2025. Due to limited time and assets, the IPT narrowed the focus of the project to the four Joint Publication (JP) 3-14 Joint Doctrine for Space Operations mission areas of Space Support, Space Control, Force Enhancement, and Force Application. During this project, the IPT defined Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) from its perspective, developed the requirements to meet the identified NSS gaps, selected the final alternatives to satisfy those requirements, and suggested an implementation plan. While in the architecture process, the IPT conducted an in-depth evaluation of the original  alternatives based on Responsiveness, Risk, Capability, and Cost. After building a foundation for further analysis, a total of 16 alternatives were chosen for the final ORS architecture. The IPT's leading alternative that provided the most responsiveness was to create a Single Space Agency. The other alternatives range from establishing joint ventures with other countries to developing hypersonic lift vehicles to transport troops and supplies. A detailed list of the Sweet Sixteen can be found in Appendix E.
RightsThis publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States.
NPS Report NumberNPS-SP-08-003
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The Rational Behavior Model: a multi-paradigm, tri-level software architecture for the control of autonomous vehicles Byrnes, Ronald Benton, Jr. (Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, 1993-03);There is currently a very strong interest among researchers in the fields of artificial intelligence and robotics in finding more effective means of linking high level symbolic computations relating to mission planning and ...
A Systems Engineering Approach to Define the Fundamental Process for Phase 0/Steady State Theater-Level Strategic Assessments Toohig, Robert J., Jr. (Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, 2012-06);This thesis describes a functional framework for developing strategic assessment at the Combatant Command level, specifically European Command. The framework establishes a functional architecture based on derived requirements ...
Blank, Richard P. (Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, 1993-09);Reconfigurability and reliability are two keys for the success of an AUV mission control software. The Strategic layer of our software architecture is the level where control of the mission is accomplished. Here, code may ...